On June 12, 2026, Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas issued a final judgment in State of Texas v. ATF, No. 2:24-cv-00089-Z, granting summary judgment to the plaintiffs and vacating the ATF’s “Definition of ‘Engaged in the Business’ as a Dealer in Firearms” Final Rule, 89 Fed. Reg. 28968 (Apr. 19, 2024). The Biden-era rule — built on a misreading of the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act (BSCA, Pub. L. 117-159) — is gone. Not enjoined. Not suspended. Vacated: removed from the books as a matter of law, unenforceable against anyone in America. That distinction is the heart of this ruling, and it deserves a precise explanation.
What the Biden Rule Did — and Why It Was Unlawful
The 2024 Final Rule implemented the BSCA’s revised definition of who must register as a federal firearms licensee. Where the old standard required that a person’s predominant objective be “livelihood and profit,” the new statutory language required only that a person seek “to predominantly earn a profit” — a materially lower bar. The Biden ATF used that change to require that virtually any person who repetitively buys and sells firearms obtain an FFL, run ATF Form 4473 background checks, and maintain transaction records feeding the ATF’s accumulating database.
The practical goal was transparent: transform private gun transfers into federally logged transactions and build a de facto registry by regulatory fiat, without Congress ever voting for one. Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, joined by Louisiana, Mississippi, Utah, Gun Owners of America (GOA), Gun Owners Foundation (GOF), the Virginia Citizens Defense League, and the Tennessee Firearms Association, sued to stop it. Kacsmaryk issued a preliminary injunction in June 2024. On June 12, 2026, he converted that interim relief into a final, permanent judgment on the merits.
Vacatur vs. Injunction: The Distinction That Changes Everything
When a court finds a federal agency rule unlawful, it has two remedial paths. An injunction directs the government not to enforce the rule against specific parties — a court order constraining conduct. Vacatur under 5 U.S.C. § 706(2) of the Administrative Procedure Act does something different: it holds the rule unlawful and sets it aside, erasing it as a legal instrument. Vacatur does not restrain a party. It annihilates the rule itself.
Judge Kacsmaryk was explicit:
“The Final Rule is therefore vacated. … Because APA vacatur is not party-restricted, the Defendants may not apply the Final Rule to anyone, including to individuals and organizations who are not parties to this case.”
Because the rule no longer exists, there is nothing for the ATF to enforce — against the named plaintiffs, against GOA members, or against any gun owner in America. Kacsmaryk accordingly denied the request for a permanent injunction as redundant: there is no rule left to enjoin.
Trump v. CASA and the APA Carve-Out
The Supreme Court’s June 2025 decision in Trump v. CASA, Inc., 606 U.S. ___ (2025), limited universal injunctions. Writing for a 6–3 majority, Justice Amy Coney Barrett held that district courts lack authority under the Judiciary Act of 1789 to issue injunctions protecting non-parties — substantially curtailing the era of nationwide preliminary injunctions.
The anti-gun states that sought to intervene here almost certainly expected CASA to confine the remedy to the named plaintiffs. It did not, because CASA addressed injunctions, not vacatur. The two instruments are legally distinct: an injunction directs a defendant’s conduct; vacatur operates on the rule itself. Kacsmaryk acknowledged CASA directly in his opinion — and that is precisely why he dissolved the earlier preliminary injunction while simultaneously granting vacatur. The injunction was now both redundant and potentially constrained by CASA; the vacatur was neither. The rule is gone for everyone not because the court issued a universal conduct order, but because the rule has no remaining legal existence to enforce.
This doctrinal point will matter in future APA litigation: CASA did not narrow APA vacatur.
Fifteen States Denied — and a Rule Dead on Two Tracks
Approximately fifteen anti-gun states — New Jersey, Connecticut, Hawaii, Maryland, Oregon, Washington, and others — moved to intervene to defend the Biden rule. Kacsmaryk denied them on three independent grounds: the intervention was likely moot because the ATF was already rescinding the rule through new rulemaking; the states would suffer no prejudice; and the motion was untimely, filed months after dispositive briefing had closed.
The rule was, in fact, being killed on parallel tracks. The Trump DOJ dismissed its own Fifth Circuit appeal in April 2026, and the ATF published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking that same month to revise or eliminate the provisions the court had found likely unlawful. Kacsmaryk declined to stay his hand pending that administrative process. The rule was still on the books; it was still illegal; he vacated it. The concurrent rulemaking does not diminish the legal significance of the judgment — if anything, it confirms the legal consensus: this rule was indefensible.
What This Means Going Forward
The Biden ATF’s engaged-in-the-business rule is a nullity. The ATF may not enforce it against anyone. A future administration seeking to resurrect the same framework would need to launch a new rulemaking from scratch, clear the statutory authority threshold the Biden rule failed, and survive fresh APA review.
My read on State of Texas v. ATF is straightforward: this is how the system is supposed to work. An agency overreaches. Plaintiffs sue. A court applies the APA, finds the rule unlawful, and wipes it from existence. Every gun owner in America benefits — not merely those who were parties. That is a clean, significant win, and it deserves to be recognized as exactly that.
This article is based on analysis by Professor Mark W. Smith, constitutional attorney and Host of the Four Boxes Diner 2nd Amendment channel. Watch the original video here. This does not constitute legal advice.